M/s Haryana State Small Industries & Export Corporation Limited., Chandigarh V. ACIT, Panchkula

ITA 1036/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63986 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK KHANNA
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1036/CHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) HARYANA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES &, VS. THE A.C.I.T ., EXPORT CORPORATION LIMITED, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, SCO 87-88, SECTOR 17-D, PANCHKULA. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAACH4689P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ASHOK KHANNA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.10.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.10.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA DAT ED 19.08.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHOR T THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN TREATING INCOME OF ASSESSEE TO BE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NOT BU SINESS INCOME AS DECLARED RESULTING IN AN ADDITION OF RS.5 6,81,730/- WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES CLAIMED AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME EARNED WHI CH ARE ALLOWABLE AND AS SUCH THE ACTION OF THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS UNJUSTIFIED. 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF B/F LO SSES TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME DECLARED AND SO ASSESSED. 2 4. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT TREATING THE CURRENT YEAR LOSS AS BUSINESS LOSS WHICH IS ARBITRARY & UNJUSTIFIED. 5. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS.4,69,691/- THOUGHNOSEPARATEADDITIONHASBEENMADE WHICH IS ARBITR ARY & UNJUSTIFIED. 6. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234-B & 234-C WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE IN T HE FACTS OF THE CASE. 7. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, OPPOSED TO LAW A ND FACTS OF THE CASE AND IS, THUS, UNTENABLE. 3. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TH AT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE O RDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007- 08. 4. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL A RE IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUES RAISED IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007- 08. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.898/CHD/2009 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6-07 VIDE ORDER DATED 28.7.2011 AND IN ITA NO.163/CHD/2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.8.2011 HAD ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES. THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE SIMILAR TO THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE TREATMENT OF INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME IS BUSINESS INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 6 IN THE APPEAL RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAD IN TURN FOLLOWING TH E RATIO LAID DOWN IN 3 THE EARLIER YEARS BY THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THE INTE REST INCOME TO BE ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HOWEVER, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF VERIFYING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION T O EARNING OF THE SAID INCOME, TO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. IN LINE WITH THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS THUS DISMISSED. HOWEVER , WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY AND ALLOW SAID EXPENDIT URE WHICH IS INCURRED FOR THE EARNING OF THE SAID INTEREST INCOME. GROUN D NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ADJUSTMENT OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES TO BE SET OFF AGAINST CURRENT YEARS INCOME. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE F AIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE SAID ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE T RIBUNAL AND HENCE GROUND NOS.3 AND 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMI SSED. 7. THE GROUND NO.5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PR ESSED AND THE SAME ME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 8. THE GROUND NO.6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINS T CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT WHI CH BEING CONSEQUENTIAL IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 17 TH OCTOBER, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 4